God Exists: An Open Debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2012, 11:12 AM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 11:56 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:18 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Hi Egor, thanks for the reply Smile
An external consciousness created our universe? Possible, but I'm not sure whether there are evidence supporting that. Still learning more about the different ideas regarding how the universe began.

I wonder how, hypothetically, such a thing my be proved.

Quote:My initial thoughts were that consciousness only came much later, when the nervous system has developed to a certain advanced point, until I read from you on how Paramecium seems to have a consciousness due to its ability to learn. My hypothesis is that it has something to do with the altered gene regulation within the paramecium due to application of a stimuli, thus changing its behaviour.

I believe that's asking DNA and RNA to do too much.

Quote:Also, it seems that another more recent paper has suggested that the learning did not take place (http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466...2.533-538) I'm unable to access the paper however, so I cannot say who is right or wrong at this point of time without looking into the research methodology of the aforementioned paper.

The paper you mention was written by the same researchers who did the work I cited. This recent paper is a further exploration; they were trying to see if the paramecium could be trained to do more complex tasks, but they conclude that they cannot and that it may require a CNS to accomplish more complicated tasks than what they originally did. So, it's not a negation of the previous research; the scientists are just seeing how much they can get out of the paramecium.

I would buy the paper, but I'm very familiar with the original work, so I'm pretty clear on what they're saying just by reading the abstract.


Quote:Something slightly off topic. I had the chance to work with Paramecium quite recently, and seen some interesting responses, like how they seem to huddle together as they die after I add Janus green into the slide, and how they respond when there is an obstacle in front of them. The best part of these Paramecium in my opinion is how they twirl around as they move about.

Sounds fascinating. And you know, the trial and error approach they take to things like moving around an obstical is itself a sign of decision-making. They attempt, back up, try a different area, back up, etc.

They act so quickly at times, that I just can't believe their apparent consciousness has anything to do with their DNA or RNA.

It's interesting to talk to someone who has also done some research with paramecia. Kudos. Bowing

Hello again Smile

Good point you raised there. We have to consider the time for gene expression to occur. Change in gene expression better explains how organisms react to stimuli across a longer period of time. Investigating the chemical changes within the Paramecium could potentially help us better understand the mechanism behind their learning. There's still quite a lot of things research has not yet been done on, even within simple organisms like Paramecium. I really hope I have another opportunity to work on these lively creatures Smile

Another organism I might be looking at is the slime mold. I'm amazed by how efficient these organisms are in locating food through a maze. I'm curious, how does the slime mold know the most efficient pathway to reach the food? Also, something even smaller, the phenomenon of quantum tunneling in photosynthesis. How does the electron map out the most efficient pathway to the reaction center?

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
Genes are not a good hypothesis for the perceived observation of paramecium learning. Genes encode proteins or provide DNA structure, they are not suitable for encoding things that change rapidly like environmental stresses. It is more likely something protein based. To use the electronics analogy, a protein can be described somewhat as a transistor. That is, if input chemical signal is X, then protein is inert. If input chemical signal is Y, then protein activates chemical reaction sequence Q. Given "transistor-like" behavior such as this it is possible to create very complex circuits, and for those circuits to evolve. It only takes eight transistors to create a basic flip-flop, the simplest analog circuit to exhibit memory. Fifty or so transistors can create extremely complex behavior, using flip-flops and logic gates.

Am I saying that a paramecium is chock full of electronic circuits and plain logic gates? No. But proteins can exhibit behavior similar to analog circuits, and analog circuits can result in complex output behavior based on simple input criteria.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
21-10-2012, 07:48 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 02:05 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Perhaps Egor just isn't ready yet. I find his propositions eerily familiar. I also find the logic offered to back them equally familiar. This is about where I was maybe 5-6 years ago. Maybe this is all just part of the process of letting go. Perhaps in a few more years he will understand more of what folks here are trying to tell. I hope so.

Until then, Egor, I will leave you with this thought:

A vast cosmic universal all-encompassing super-consciousness is a pretty incredible claim. A paramecium that seems to learn from stimuli, not so much. Small beans, man. What else ya got?

I will say this though, it's been enlightening reading your posts. It's like a rear view mirror for me. I see much of my younger self in you, philosophically speaking. Please, expound.

I know, you're so much further along than I am. Maybe one day I can reach the heights you've climbed.

Look, idiot: atheism is irrational. Religion is irrational. Atheism is a religion based on beliefs in things that have no proof. My belief in God is a rational, non-religious belief. So don't fuck off mad, just fuck off. Shy
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
21-10-2012, 07:50 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 11:54 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:39 PM)Egor Wrote:  What god?

Any and all gods. As long as you believe that there is no omnipotent being that created the universe, you can be considered an Atheist. Note, you can concede the logical possibility, but as long as you don't consider it likely or prefer a different explanation you can call yourself an Atheist.*

If you don't know if there is such an omnipotent being or not and don't take a side, you're probably an Agnostic.

If you believe that there is such an omnipotent being that created the universe, but don't think he interferes in human affairs, you're a Deist.

If you believe that there is a god that created the universe, and that he has a plan for the human race, and rules, then you are a Theist.

If you believe in two or more "gods" or "beings" of great, but not necessarily omnipotent power that may or may not have created the universe, then you are a Polytheist.

If you believe that all human beings and (optionally) animals and (optionally) matter is part of one giant universal consciousness, then you are a Pantheist.



*(optionally an "Agnostic Atheist" if you're a pedant)

I'm an acosmic monist, actually.
Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 07:51 PM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
I don't know what you mean by that, but whatever.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 07:56 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 02:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hehehe Tongue I don't think you'll see a revert to theism. But expect some rather forceful Anglo-Saxon expressions Big Grin

What? Censored

(21-10-2012 03:24 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Conscious state can't exist without cause, so that statement would be false. :/

Actually, the only thing that can exist without cause is a fundamental consciousness. That's what has led me to believe that God is the monistic fundamental consciousness.

In other words, a first cause must be uncaused. If the first cause leads to the existence of consciousness, then it must have the attribute of consciousness. If it is not material (because matter is contingent) then the only thing the first cause can be is consciousness.
Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:08 PM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 07:48 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 02:05 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Perhaps Egor just isn't ready yet. I find his propositions eerily familiar. I also find the logic offered to back them equally familiar. This is about where I was maybe 5-6 years ago. Maybe this is all just part of the process of letting go. Perhaps in a few more years he will understand more of what folks here are trying to tell. I hope so.

Until then, Egor, I will leave you with this thought:

A vast cosmic universal all-encompassing super-consciousness is a pretty incredible claim. A paramecium that seems to learn from stimuli, not so much. Small beans, man. What else ya got?

I will say this though, it's been enlightening reading your posts. It's like a rear view mirror for me. I see much of my younger self in you, philosophically speaking. Please, expound.

I know, you're so much further along than I am. Maybe one day I can reach the heights you've climbed.

Look, idiot: atheism is irrational. Religion is irrational. Atheism is a religion based on beliefs in things that have no proof. My belief in God is a rational, non-religious belief. So don't fuck off mad, just fuck off. Shy

Not believing in God is rational; your beliefs based on no evidence are irrational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:09 PM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
egor I will read your book reviews and do exactly the opposite of what they tell me to do.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:17 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 03:58 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Even more people have claimed that they've been obducted by aliens, healed by the Holy Spirit and that they've seen Jesus. Do you believe in any of these claims? You see, the problem with precognition, remote viewing and NDE's is that they are unfalsifiable. There is (currently) no possible way you could prove that someone did not have either of these, since of all them occur in a person's head. As technology progresses, we may be able to verify their claims, but for now, it's nothing but unreliable anecdotal evidence.

I must admit, I do fully realize my argument from psi phenomena is weak in that it is subjective, and as you say, unfalsifiable. I don't know why these things can't be duplicated. I have never been able to control when I will have a precognitive dream. I don't like them at all, so I don't try to have them.

But here's the thing. I have reported the dreams accurately to you. Yes, I could be lying to you. But they might be lying to us about global warming, or landing on Mars, or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

All I would ask is for the benefit of the doubt. If I am not lying, what do you make of the precognitive dreams? If you knew for a fact they occurred the way I reported them, would that have any impact on how you believe?

(20-10-2012 11:39 PM)Egor Wrote:  I doubt that there is a consensus in the scientific community about that. It's an argument from ignorance/argument from incredulity either way if you want to claim that because we have no explanation for something yet/you can't imagine a naturalistic explanation for phenomena X, it must be supernatural explanation Y.

No one has ever said they were conscious. That's not a statement scientists can answer scientifically. But of course, we can't answer that about each other right now. If something seems conscious without our having designed it to look that way, we tend to assume it is conscious. My dog is obviously conscious. I am, and you seem to be. So do the protozoa.

(21-10-2012 11:12 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Hello again Smile

Good point you raised there. We have to consider the time for gene expression to occur. Change in gene expression better explains how organisms react to stimuli across a longer period of time. Investigating the chemical changes within the Paramecium could potentially help us better understand the mechanism behind their learning. There's still quite a lot of things research has not yet been done on, even within simple organisms like Paramecium. I really hope I have another opportunity to work on these lively creatures Smile

Another organism I might be looking at is the slime mold. I'm amazed by how efficient these organisms are in locating food through a maze. I'm curious, how does the slime mold know the most efficient pathway to reach the food? Also, something even smaller, the phenomenon of quantum tunneling in photosynthesis. How does the electron map out the most efficient pathway to the reaction center?

I'm going to have to look up slime molds. Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, my biology is limited when it comes to plants. But I get what you're saying.
Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:19 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 08:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not believing in God is rational; your beliefs based on no evidence are irrational.

How do you manage to write with such an effeminate lisp?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  WHY DO HUMANS THINK THEY NEED TO BELIEVE GOD EXISTS? kim 32 458 20-07-2014 08:05 PM
Last Post: Free Thought
  Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes Mark Fulton 36 476 14-07-2014 05:55 PM
Last Post: PigMonkeyandFrog
  Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies Zephony 111 14,096 21-06-2014 12:20 PM
Last Post: Forthright Atheist
  Matt's debate with Sye Cathym112 19 304 15-06-2014 08:00 AM
Last Post: Hafnof
Question Effective/ineffective debate arguments ? sporehux 12 274 29-04-2014 06:41 AM
Last Post: RobbyPants
  If hell exists than heaven cannot. Cathym112 24 474 28-04-2014 06:41 PM
Last Post: 31:25
  The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate Deltabravo 91 1,429 05-04-2014 04:30 PM
Last Post: Mark Fulton
Forum Jump: